DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1403 of 2019
Date of institution: 13.08.2019 Date of decision : 26.10.2021
Ranjit Singh Goraya, House No.1871, Sector 80, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. State Bank of India, SPL Housing Fin Branch SCF 32, Phase-10, Sector 64, Mohali through Branch Manager.
2. State Bank of India, RACPC, SCO 99-107, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Assistant General Manager.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member
Present: Complainant in person alongwith counsel
Shri A.K. Bakshi,.
Shri R.K. Rai, counsel for the OPs.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present complaint has been filed under the Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’ for short) on the ground that the CC obtained a loan to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- from the OPs. Since the loan was carrying heavy interest and in order to lessen his burden, the CC cleared the loan on 24.10.2018 and requested the OPs to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC). The allegation of the CC is that even an amount of Rs.7520/-was showing in the bank statement as outstanding as on 24.10.2018 which was also cleared on 03.11.2018 along with interest. While meeting the officials of the OPs, the CC was surprised to know that a simultaneous account for insurance premium against the CC was also running in the papers of the OPs. The CC seriously objected to it and told the officials of the OPs that he never subscribed to any such policy of OP No.1 while getting loan from OP No.2. The entire loan was repaid on 03.11.2018, but no copy of insurance policy was supplied to the CC. The CC also gave various reminders, copies of which are attached with the complaint. It is alleged that the OPs refused to issue an NOC and also the copy of insurance policy of the SBI Life Insurance Company which was allegedly covering the housing loan of the CC. It is further alleged that the bank has been charging interest even on the insurance amount and termed it as an insurance loan without the consent of the CC. The CC was shocked to know that the OPs deducted the entire premium of insurance policy in 15 years and treated the same as a loan, which the CC was supposed to clear in five years and the OPs on its own started recovering the same from the CC. It is alleged that by charging the CC in a double way, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. The CC has specifically alleged that he never gave any consent for issuance of any such policy at the time of obtaining loan. The CC also approached the Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh on 11.12.2018, who also gave directions to the OPs not to claim any such amount and issue an NOC immediately. The CC regularly followed up with the bank and the Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh. Despite orders of the Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh, the OPs did not bother to issue an NOC and continued to deduct the premium.
Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought issuance of an NOC by the OPs and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with litigation charges of Rs. 25,000/-. Complaint of the CC is verified and supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. In reply both the OPs have justified their acts, though OP No.2 has claimed that OP No.1 is a separate entity, but they have preferred to file a joint reply. It is further alleged that the NOC could be issued after adjustment of the additional loan account, when the payment is made by the CC. It is further averred that the rate of interest was applied in terms of the loan documents duly executed in this regard. However, it must have been in the own interest of the complainant that he decided to adjust his housing loan account. It is further averred that the CC himself opted for the additional housing loan facility for insurance premium, duly executed the said agreement. It is also averred that various schemes are being launched and introduced for the ultimate welfare of the public at large. When the customers approach the bank for any of the facility, they are being apprised with the different schemes/plan for their absolute benefits. The customers avail and opt for those schemes after understanding and knowing fully well all the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It is further averred that the CC visited the OP Bank and wished for the Housing Loan and upon finding him eligible, the housing loan was sanctioned and granted upon execution of necessary security documents. At his request, the authorized official of the Company was called to guide the customers for the optimum benefits and after knowing the suitability, the CC agreed and satisfied with the terms and conditions of the products explained and thereby, availed the facility of additional loan, which he has to repay along with applicable rate of interest to claim the NOC after adjustment of additional loan account. Thus terming the complaint of the CC as false and frivolous, the Ops have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. The CC in support of his complaint submitted his affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to C-8. On the other hand OPs have submitted an affidavit of Shri Karan Chawla, Branch Manager and documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the file minutely.
5. At this stage counsel for the Ops has brought one banker cheque bearing No.728789 dated 22.10.2021 in the name of the complainant in the sum of Rs.35,525/- which the OPs had deducted against the insurance cover despite the fact that the entire loan of the OPs was re-paid by the complainant in November, 2018 and also in compliance of our interim order dated 26.07.2021, which has been accepted by the complainant under protest. However, the counsel for the complainant prays that compensation for mental harassment suffered by the complainant may kindly be awarded alongwith litigation costs. It is very surprising that despite orders of the Banking Ombudsman and payment of the entire loan by the CC to the Bank on 03.11.2018, OP Nos. 1 and 2 had been deducting the amount of Rs.1,015/- every month from the CC. Further it is also writ large on the file that the CC never consented for subscribing of any such policy issued by OP No.1. No document is produced by the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to show that the CC ever subscribed any policy to safeguard his interest. We feel, that without the consent of the CC the subscription of the policy on behalf of the CC by the OP No.2, is definitely a malpractice and deficiency in service on its part. Further by converting the subscription amount of insurance policy of its own by OP No.2, into “loan amount” and then charging interest on it is an another act of deficiency in service and malpractice on the part of the OPs. It is also brought to our notice by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that the OPs despite orders passed by the Banking Ombudsman did not issue an NOC nor complied with the orders of the Banking Ombudsman. We feel, that this is a case of extreme high headedness on the part of the officials of OP Nos. 1 and 2 who definitely deserve some orders from this Commission, against them.
6. Accordingly, we allow this complaint and direct OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay a consolidated compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) to the CC for mental and physical harassment. In case this amount of Rs.25,000/- is not paid within 30 days from today since the judgment is pronounced in the open Commission, OP Nos. 1 and 2 will be liable to pay interest on this amount @ 9% per annum from the date this order. OP Nos. 1 and 2 are further directed to hand over the NOC to the CC within 30 days from today. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the police to initiate criminal proceedings against the Managers of OP Nos.1 and 2 who forged the documents of the complainant and subscribed the policy of OP No.1 without his consent. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
October 26, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
